MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133498623 · doi:10.1139/x11-125

Fire history from three species on a central Appalachian ridgetop

2011· article· en· W2133498623 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amy Hessl, Thomas M. Schuler, Peter W. Clark, Joshua A. Wixom

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNature Conservancy
KeywordsFire ecologyFire regimePrescribed burnGeographyEcologyFire historyForestryPinus <genus>Fire protectionArchaeologyAgroforestryEnvironmental scienceBiologyEcosystemBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of settlement era fires on Appalachian forests was substantial, but whether these fires affected the extent of fire-adapted ridgetop plant communities is poorly understood. Here we present fire history and stand structure of an Appalachian ridgetop (Pike Knob, West Virginia) based on fire scars from three species (Pinus pungens Lamb., Pinus resinosa Soland., and Quercus rubra L.) and stand structure from two species (P. pungens and P. resinosa). Our research objectives are to determine (i) the degree to which the fire frequency on Pike Knob was affected by European American settlement (~1780–1900) and (ii) how the history of fire on Pike Knob shaped the current age structure of P. resinosa and P. pungens. All three species documented fire activity beginning in the mid- to late 1800s and continuing into the middle of the 20th century, when pasture lands were most active. The majority of P. pungens and P. resinosa established during or shortly after the ~85-year period of fires (1868–1953), suggesting a strong influence of past land use on current forest composition. Ridgetop pine communities have been resilient to both the absence of fire and frequent fire, indicating that pine communities will also be resilient to modern fire management, whether fire is excluded or re-introduced.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.174 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207